I was in class at the university. I remember getting out and seeing a bunch of people gathered around a tv in the hallway. I overheard something about the WTC, and I thought it must have been about the '93 bombing or something. When I got to my next class, the professor came in and told us what had happened. A couple profs around campus canceled, but all mine went on with business as usual. It was pretty surreal. I didn't see any of the footage or anything until I got home around 6 that night
frankfartmouth's forum posts
I've hardly played any games in the last year; I've just had too much going on. Sometimes I'll break out my TurboGrafx or SNES for a quick shooter or something, but that's about it. It took me about 10 months to beat Dark Souls, I've been so busy, and so I haven't started up anything time consuming since. In fact, I haven't even posted anything on this site for about a year.
Sometimes you got to do other stuff, you know? If you're concerned that you're losing interest in the whole thing, probably not. I mean, maybe, some people do, but it's more likely that you just need a break for a minute. Something will almost certainly grab your attention again.
What's all this about the height? Meaningless. By far the most important thing to consider is whether he can embody the role. Wolverine is described as 5'3" in the comics. Hugh Jackman is a full foot taller than that, and he's great for the role. He carries Wolverine. That's what matters. Also, they can shoot Cruise to make him come off a bit taller, just like they shot Jackman to seem shorter in the first couple films (they've pretty much scrapped that now).
That said, I don't think it's a good idea. He has too much baggage. People aren't going to see Batman. They're going to see Tom Cruise. He's a great actor, but he's really shot himself him in the foot with all his tabloid attention. That does matter. Even without all that, I don't think he would be a good choice. He has this boyish intensity. It works well for most of his roles, but he doesn't really do sullen and brooding. Not that he couldn't. He definitely has range, but I think it would be best to go for someone who has that a little more in their repertoire.
Someone mentioned Jon Hamm. I think that's a little closer.
I have to cramp my hand into a funny position to play the DS for long. It really gets uncomfortable. I wouldn't mind playing with a larger controller and with my arms a little more relaxed. I think it's worth a try.
They're all going to be grindy and basic by modern standards, just some a little less so than others.
By far my favorite of the 8-bit JRPGs was Phantasy Star. I think it holds up much better than the rest. It has 3D dungeons (sort of), better graphics, great sound, and a more sophisticated story than most of its contemporaries.
Maybe spring for a Master System too? They can't be much off of ebay.
Nintendo has always marched to their own beat. That's what has made them great, but it also sometimes alienates them when they're doing stuff that is completely confounding.
There are lots of reasons why people don't like Nintendo. Some people just don't like the whimsical nature of their games, some feel abandoned by them in the past several years because of their preoccupation with crappy motion controls and a willingness to greenlight cascades of shovelware to pour like a waterfall into the market, some people are just haters and want to see them fail just cuz. Lots of reasons.
One thing's for certain, though, Nintendo relies upon big, sweeping innovations. They're a feast or famine company, always swinging for the long ball. When they connect, I think they're the best gaming company out there. When they miss, it's pretty ugly (Virtual Boy, a lot of the Wii, the whole WiiU, all the fucking garbage peripherals for the NES). This yo-yo shit gets old, and a lot of gamers feel understandably jerked around by them, especially those of us who grew up with such a special connection to their games.
They need to figure a way to preserve their looseness and experimental bend but add a little predictability. The Wii was a very frustrating tease. Despite the fact that it had some of the best games of last generation to me (especially Galaxy), those games could have been on the Cube. With a controller. And now with the WiiU coming out limp, a lot of us out throwing our hands up.
I really hope they get it together, because I do not hate Nintendo at all. I very badly want them to stay around and stay healthy.
If you follow the disease concept of addiction, which all the major governing medical bodies do, then just about anything can be addictive. The underlying problem is in the brain and its reward system; the manifestation--uncontrollable drug use, overeating, gambling, sex--is a symptom. As long as the addictive agent can produce a tolerance, which video games do in a sense, and can disrupt everyday life to a point of severe consequences, which video games certainly can, then it can be plugged into the criteria.
Besides all that, I can say with no doubt that I've had problems with video game addiction. I've struggled with addiction overall throughout my life, been in rehab, lots of drugs and alcohol. Crazy times have been had. I had to quit all that because of some health issues, and I subsequently developed a nasty habit of playing video games all the time and neglecting my wife and the such.
It follows you around and finds a way to get out. You have to deal with the underlying issues or you'll just keep finding ways to substitute. That's addiction. As long as something plays into the reward systems of the brain, it can be addicting. Video games certainly qualify.
I think it's the best game of the last generation, for what it's worth . Best one for my tastes, anyway. One of those games that feels new but rooted in old school mechanics, so it's familiar too. It's made every other RPG of the last generation look silly to me.